4 ms·

I thought we had agreed not to discuss politics in political detox week?

grzm 10y ago
The week-long experiment was terminated early. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13133855 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13133855 You've now posted this nearly identical comment for the third time, where it's been answered twice (and now a third time).
dang 10y ago
Please don't hijack top comments. Not cool. (grzm answered your question, so I'll refer you to that reply for that.) We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13132790 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13132790 and marked it off-topic.
- madaxe_again 10y ago
  Wait, so all of that had the sole outcome of kicking a hornets nest? If you're going to change the site rules on a daily basis you need to actually communicate it. All you've managed here is mass confusion and frustration, and you've eroded my trust, and I'm sure others, in your ability to run this place. I feel like I've been trolled. Also, not hijacking, responding to a political comment when I thought we'd banned political discussion. Calling out users for shit you can plainly see they've done at your bidding: not cool. Having to edit this as I can't write another reply, cheers for the throttle for disagreeing. Yes, I posted it three times in three political threads because dang asked that we flag/call out political discussion in a major front page thread, and you then asked that we don't in a random comment buried in a political article. Can you honestly not see how this might not be fantastically clear communication, and how while this is as plain as day to you it's utterly opaque to Joe user?
  - dang 10y ago
    Ok, I'm sorry you felt like you were trolled—that's not pleasant—and believe you that you weren't doing the topjacking thing. I probably gave you less benefit of the doubt about this because your account has a history of being snarky and uncivil in comments. It would be good for all of us if you'd work on eliminating that; it lowers the level of discourse we're trying for here, and (case in point) fosters misunderstanding.

grzm 10y ago

The week-long experiment was terminated early. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13133855 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13133855 You've now posted this nearly identical comment for the third time, where it's been answered twice (and now a third time).

dang 10y ago

Please don't hijack top comments. Not cool. (grzm answered your question, so I'll refer you to that reply for that.) We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13132790 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13132790 and marked it off-topic.

madaxe_again 10y ago
Wait, so all of that had the sole outcome of kicking a hornets nest? If you're going to change the site rules on a daily basis you need to actually communicate it. All you've managed here is mass confusion and frustration, and you've eroded my trust, and I'm sure others, in your ability to run this place. I feel like I've been trolled. Also, not hijacking, responding to a political comment when I thought we'd banned political discussion. Calling out users for shit you can plainly see they've done at your bidding: not cool. Having to edit this as I can't write another reply, cheers for the throttle for disagreeing. Yes, I posted it three times in three political threads because dang asked that we flag/call out political discussion in a major front page thread, and you then asked that we don't in a random comment buried in a political article. Can you honestly not see how this might not be fantastically clear communication, and how while this is as plain as day to you it's utterly opaque to Joe user?
- dang 10y ago
  Ok, I'm sorry you felt like you were trolled—that's not pleasant—and believe you that you weren't doing the topjacking thing. I probably gave you less benefit of the doubt about this because your account has a history of being snarky and uncivil in comments. It would be good for all of us if you'd work on eliminating that; it lowers the level of discourse we're trying for here, and (case in point) fosters misunderstanding.